General Discussion

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)

3. I think jurors had reasonable doubt on who was on top, etc. But that was not the crime.

Reply to Vox Moi (Original post)

Sun Jul 14, 2013, 07:11 PM

Jul 2013

The crime was obvious. Zimmerman's defenders and supporters tried to keep it on irrelevant pieces of the crime.

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

43 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Zimmerman and the misplaced burden of proof. [View all] Vox Moi Jul 2013 OP

Yes, this is likely what confused the jurors treestar Jul 2013 #1

What I was trying to say was that in making an appeal for self-defense ... Vox Moi Jul 2013 #4

I hear you, but they can raise defenses via other witnesses they bring in their case. RBInMaine Jul 2013 #17

criminally negligent - that would have been possible to prove treestar Jul 2013 #22

Even if he knew the police were comming, he didn't know how long it was going to take. Travis_0004 Jul 2013 #33

what's with the spelling? CreekDog Jul 2013 #42

Yup. Even criminally "reckless" given his long list of bad judgments and lies. Here's what happened: RBInMaine Jul 2013 #41

Constitutionally no one can be forced to testify Yo_Mama Jul 2013 #2

The fifth amendment goes to self-incrimination Vox Moi Jul 2013 #5

Forcing someone to testify to make that argument is unconstitutional Yo_Mama Jul 2013 #11

Then they are guilty of murder, end of discussion Blackford Jul 2013 #13

Right, but you cannot force someone to testify to that to make the argument. Yo_Mama Jul 2013 #20

In most states it is required you testify to take an affirmative defense. n/t Blackford Jul 2013 #21

Link? onenote Jul 2013 #26

No link needed Blackford Jul 2013 #38

I think you meant no link possible onenote Jul 2013 #40

what? qazplm Jul 2013 #34

Please see #38 n/t Blackford Jul 2013 #39

I think jurors had reasonable doubt on who was on top, etc. But that was not the crime. Hoyt Jul 2013 #3

I agree with your post but take exception to requiring defendant to testify. Avalux Jul 2013 #6

You are the only witness to a crime you committed Ruby the Liberal Jul 2013 #8

Yes it does, that's why the current law is flawed. Avalux Jul 2013 #9

Exactly. Ruby the Liberal Jul 2013 #10

I'd say shift the burden but don't require testimony. Jim Lane Jul 2013 #23

Agreed Ruby the Liberal Jul 2013 #24

It is up to the state to disprove your self defense argument. onenote Jul 2013 #27

not even a little bit. ever. what's fucked up to me is giving the state more power cali Jul 2013 #32

Not only was the burden on the state - he didn't even have to testify. Ruby the Liberal Jul 2013 #7

The burden was on the defense. The prosecution threw the case. IMO Vincardog Jul 2013 #12

Was he tried in Ohio? Ruby the Liberal Jul 2013 #14

what are you quoting? onenote Jul 2013 #28

It was a link someone posted to justify their opinion that poor widdle Z was as pure as the driven Vincardog Jul 2013 #43

+1 truebluegreen Jul 2013 #18

I had little free time to browse the news today but 2naSalit Jul 2013 #15

It gets better exboyfil Jul 2013 #30

Yes we had this discussion before the verdict Just Saying Jul 2013 #16

I agree with you, and to be honest I had always thought that was how it petronius Jul 2013 #19

I'm inclined to agree with you cpwm17 Jul 2013 #25

The shift in the burden of proof was done Turbineguy Jul 2013 #29

sorry, don't agree. cali Jul 2013 #31

I totally agree. We don't need to replace the current system which one in which ... spin Jul 2013 #35

people are reacting to the Zimmerman verdict. stupidly. still, it scares me to see how reactionary cali Jul 2013 #36

I blame our educational system. .. spin Jul 2013 #37